If You're On Food Stamps, You Should Lose Voting Privileges?

You start correcting the article by saying voting is a right, not a privilege. The you go on to say that some people should not be able to vote on
certain issues that do not pertain to them? THAT'S EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS EVER VOTED FOR ANYTHING. So good idea buddy, lets just make this
country a monarchy and forget all this voting crap

.

"Can't feed 'em, Don't breed 'em". Nice. Math too complicated to figure out how to help people in trouble? F*ck it! Eugenics.

edit on
3/1/12 by ideasarebulletproof because: (no reason given)

I also said that with rights come responsibilities, and if you are failing in your responsibilities (in this case providing your own income) then you
lose your right to vote on the appropriation of other's income via the tax code. The problem lies in the fact that soon there will be more zero
liability recipients than producers, and then what? "Can't feed 'em, Don't breed 'em" speaks to one's personal responsibility, so in other
words if you are broke then take measures not to have kids that you can't afford, but when there is the safety net of the producers wealth being
redistributed to pay for these kids and their needs, personal responsibility and common sense go out the window. Eugenics? No, because that would be
murder. How about mandatory birth control for every woman on welfare. Now there's some "health care reform" that I can support.

I am working on starting up an organization that is run by voting. One of the decisions I made was to make it so that votes giving unequal transfers
of money are ONLY voted on by the people giving up the money. Anyone can join the organization. So lets say the organization had 1 million dollars in
the bank and 100 people. Well a group of 200 people could join with the intent of voting to give them self the 1 million dollars while the 100 people
who did all the hard work of getting that get none of it.

Not having the rule would destroy the organization because the careless uninvolved people would come and vote to give them self the organization's
money. This is the main reason why America will collapse just like the Soviet Union... because the people without money are voting to give them self
the money that the workers are responsible for. So, am I going to waste hundreds of hours of my time forming an organization that will collapse on
account of voters being able to vote to get all my organizations money? Hell no.

A thousand years ago this was the standard argument against democracy, and is being proven correct as we speak. The USA will collapse soon. The
work-around for this not to take away anyone's voting rights, but rather have only the people who's money is being taken away vote on how it will be
spent. Furthermore, the people who have their money taken away must have the option of opting out of the system if they believe it has been
corrupted.

Originally posted by Viking9019
Well they are the lowest of the low in society so i wouldn't care if they did lose their privileges.

If they had their privileges taken away years ago then Obama would of never of got into power since most of his supporters were ghetto trash.

Wow, you are really ignorant. I happen to live in a household that receives food stamps, I live with my mother who is on SSI. I work and we use the
stamps to eat, we get a total of $30 per week for the BOTH of us.

Lowest of the low? That's hilarious. I am a college graduate and she worked in industrial sales for over 10 years, making $150,000 - $180,000 dollars
per year. She has paid an enormous amount of taxes in her working life. Now her diabetes has gotten to the point where she isn't able to work as she
used to.

We fell on some hard times due to natural disasters affecting us when we lived in Florida, on the beach. People like you are completely ignorant, and
really need to be knocked off the pedestal.

Have you ever received a paycheck for $25,000 dollars for one month of work? Yeah..the lowest of the low

Get your head out of your butt and stop listening to FOX news like it's the gospel.

You start correcting the article by saying voting is a right, not a privilege. The you go on to say that some people should not be able to vote on
certain issues that do not pertain to them? THAT'S EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS EVER VOTED FOR ANYTHING. So good idea buddy, lets just make this
country a monarchy and forget all this voting crap

.

"Can't feed 'em, Don't breed 'em". Nice. Math too complicated to figure out how to help people in trouble? F*ck it! Eugenics.

edit on
3/1/12 by ideasarebulletproof because: (no reason given)

No doubt. Let's simultaneously have a 30-yr temper tantrum about birth control and abortion....and then also punish people for not keeping their
numbers in check.

Wait...I got it...why don't we just outlaw screwing in the low-income brackets? That seems like it might work...right? I'm sure that actually
enforcing an asinine policy like that would be cheaper than just giving the poor bastards part of the millions and millions of tons of perfectly good
food that America throws away each and every day.

I think the bigger question is how do we stop this disease of hate-filled willful ignorance that is all the rage amongst right-wing extremists? Why
isn't anybody calling for a little eugenics IN THAT population? Let's go demonize some of those red-state inbreeds for awhile to see what that
sounds like:

How about we deny the vote to every farmer in America? Those lazy, no-good, "lowest of the low" have been on leaching subsidies off the taxpayers
tit for 80 years and precious few of them could hope to support themselves or stave off bankruptcy without being a charity case on the back of
society. Besides...historically farmers have lots and lots of kids. See...the bastards are breeding like cockroaches! By the way...screw the
republican districts the next time the crops are destroyed by floods, hail, tornados, drought, etc. If those damn irresponsible no-good farmers
didn't set aside enough money to weather complete market failures and the destruction of an entire years worth of income to no-fault of their
own...well...that's their own problem. If Farmer John wasn't such a pathetic excuse of a human he would have taken it upon himself to just go ahead
and get himself a degree in Computer Science & Discrete Mathematics after he got in from the field. It was HIS CHOICE to remain a
country-bumpkin...right? So if those farmers can't afford heat this winter and one of their young children catches pneumonia and dies IT'S HIS OWN
DAMN FAULT!! Don't come crying to me or wanting to raise MY taxes just because Farmer John foolishly squandered his last $15 on food prior to saving
it for a much needed bottle of penicillin for a sickness he did not know was coming. Maybe if Farmer John was more responsible and didn't listen to
his church who told him that birth control was bad he wouldn't have so many kids and it wouldn't be problem. And for that matter...that slut wife
of his needs to learn how to keep her legs closed and not breed faster than the damn chickens used to do before the tornado came. Miserable low-life
scum. I hope we don't let THIS sort of filth vote next time around.

Hmmmm...something tells me all those "survival of the fittest" and pro-eugenicists will somehow come back with the "Well...that's
different...they're FARMERS" argument when applying the same logic to their die-hard loyalist demographics. Plus...let's face it...most farmers
are white American males, who are, by definition...land-owning. It's always "different" for them isn't it?

I swear...we are the STUPIDEST nation of people to ever walk the face of this earth.

Originally posted by Viking9019
Well they are the lowest of the low in society so i wouldn't care if they did lose their privileges.

If they had their privileges taken away years ago then Obama would of never of got into power since most of his supporters were ghetto trash.

Wow, you are really ignorant. I happen to live in a household that receives food stamps, I live with my mother who is on SSI. I work and we use the
stamps to eat, we get a total of $30 per week for the BOTH of us.

Lowest of the low? That's hilarious. I am a college graduate and she worked in industrial sales for over 10 years, making $150,000 - $180,000 dollars
per year. She has paid an enormous amount of taxes in her working life. Now her diabetes has gotten to the point where she isn't able to work as she
used to.

We fell on some hard times due to natural disasters affecting us when we lived in Florida, on the beach. People like you are completely ignorant, and
really need to be knocked off the pedestal.

Have you ever received a paycheck for $25,000 dollars for one month of work? Yeah..the lowest of the low

Get your head out of your butt and stop listening to FOX news like it's the gospel.

EXACTLY. Like it was the fault of all those poor shrimp fisherman in the Gulf of Mexico that BP turned it into a lifeless wasteland. A lot of those
people have been doing the same thing FOR GENERATIONS. All of a sudden in a span of a couple of months the marine life is dead...but they still have
payments on the fishing boats, equipment, insurance, etc. etc. etc.

Everyday I become more and more ashamed to be an American when I hear people spouting off those kinds of ignorant and hateful "lowest of the low"
statements.

Just read this ridiculous article.
So according to this guy, people on food stamps should:
1. Lose voting privileges so "they couldn’t vote for greater benefits or easier terms (most of them don’t vote, but now they couldn’t)."Why? Most people don't vote anyway.
2. Be forced to shop at "Government Stores" so they feel the humiliation of being "wards of the state".
Oh and the "Government food products" would be easily recognizable, to further humiliation for people on food stamps. Good luck keeping that store open with most of the customers getting humiliated coming there.

3. Be subject to monthly tobacco and drug screening, and if found with tobacco or drugs in their system, be dropped from the program. I get FS and I never smoked or did drugs in my live.
I really hope this is a joke, but I'm guessing it isn't. The sad thing is, a lot of people on this site will probably agree with this reprehensible
person.

I am working on starting up an organization that is run by voting. One of the decisions I made was to make it so that votes giving unequal transfers
of money are ONLY voted on by the people giving up the money. Anyone can join the organization. So lets say the organization had 1 million dollars in
the bank and 100 people. Well a group of 200 people could join with the intent of voting to give them self the 1 million dollars while the 100 people
who did all the hard work of getting that get none of it.

Not having the rule would destroy the organization because the careless uninvolved people would come and vote to give them self the organization's
money. This is the main reason why America will collapse just like the Soviet Union... because the people without money are voting to give them self
the money that the workers are responsible for. So, am I going to waste hundreds of hours of my time forming an organization that will collapse on
account of voters being able to vote to get all my organizations money? Hell no.

A thousand years ago this was the standard argument against democracy, and is being proven correct as we speak. The USA will collapse soon. The
work-around for this not to take away anyone's voting rights, but rather have only the people who's money is being taken away vote on how it will be
spent. Furthermore, the people who have their money taken away must have the option of opting out of the system if they believe it has been
corrupted.

You are confused.

"Money" does not equal "productivity". A big part of the problem is that we have come to measure "productivity" ONLY in terms of "money".

Who does more of the "hard work" and contributes more to society...Paris Hilton or a school teacher? Who has more money?

What you are saying would be correct...IF we lived in a meritocracy with a 100% death-tax and ALL individuals had access to a COMPLETELY FREE
educational system which ALSO literally PAID THEM to go to school so that a poor student wouldn't have to have their studies suffer from working a
job to make ends meet.

...but hey...that's socialism and you are against that. The sad fact is that there is an ENORMOUS amount of people that have HUGE sums of wealth
which they did not earn. Likewise...the last time I checked there sure were a lot of incompetent CEO's who get bonuses in the tens of millions for
essentially running a company into a bankruptcy/bailout situation.

Therefore...the idea that material wealth is mutually exclusive from productivity seems to be a sound one...wouldn't you agree?

When I was a kid, my mother (we) accepted public assistance, but I remember her telling us, that this $$$ will all be paid back. 1.5yrs on pubAsst,
and over the years on her income tax return my cool ass mother would always send a check in, and she’d journal it as (pubasst payback 1.5yrs), she
paid every last dime back... My mother would tell us, we will move from here because I choose to, and we will never take a handout with the intention
of not returning its “value”... She use to call our neighbors before we moved from our rather not so nice area; looters. She would say they
stopped thinking for themselves and now they are truly owned by the Government... Years later I read Atlas Shrugged, my mom use to rant with
enjoyment about Ayn Rand.. sorry for going off track... anyway, the goal is to use the pubAsst as a means of improvement, not to become stagnant. I
guess it all comes down to the 'person'. No law can change that...

Well they are the lowest of the low in society so i wouldn't care if they did lose their privileges.

If they had their privileges taken away years ago then Obama would of never of got into power since most of his supporters were ghetto trash.

You do know that TPTB would have just put another mouthpiece stooge in office to do pretty much the same thing.

Remember Bush. He deregulated wall street. King Obama the Marxist took what King Bush the fascist was doing and took it to another level of soviet
style marxist control.

You think Palin-McCain(CFR) would have did anything different?

All foodstamps are ran through JPMorgan's (rockefeller owned) Bank system. Its all imaginary FIAT numbers on a computer just like congress's checks
and Quantative Easing from the Fed to "bailout" or "bribe" private businesses.

The question posed is ultimately ridiculous. Our votes mean nothing, the whole system is rigged, and the Bush family has been running this country
since the Reagan era (when Bush Sr.'s friend Hinckley sacrificed his son to try to assassinate Reagan). Clinton and Obama were literally in the
Bush's grasp and probably threatened. If they were not, the entire Bush family would be in the Hague right now awaiting execution for war crimes.

Originally posted by DarthOej
The argument of stripping people of their right to vote because of a conflict of interest is asinine. By that logic anyone affiliated with local,
state, or the federal government shouldn't be allowed to vote. Military, civil service, whatever. Hell, by that logic no citizen should have the
right to vote because we all have something to gain by getting the right person elected.

100% agree with your statement.

That being said, I had a hard time reading your post because of your avatar.
Hahahaaaaaa

That's awesome.

You should see the Gary Busey one I have, but I think it is too big to use as an avatar.

Originally posted by ImaMuslim
Why do you keep calling it democracy when it's actually demoncrazy? It's ruled by greed fools who know nothing of Democracy or the meaning of it. I
bet that when you study politics you get taught more on how to fool people than how to help them.
It's sickening and pathetic that you call America a democracy.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.